Is the New Jerusalem Bible a good choice for me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To get this thread back on track, I do like the New Jerusalem Bible. I think it shines when you read it devotionally, the REB (ecumenical translation) also works well in this respect. Both translations are more dynamic than the RSV, D-R and the NRSV, so they flow very well when reading. It always comes down to personal taste, so why not collect them all!
 
Will the third edition of the Jerusalem Bible which has been released in French ever be released in English?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Will the third edition of the Jerusalem Bible which has been released in French ever be released in English?
Click to expand...
There’s an English version (successor to the NJB) in the works currently titled “The Bible in its Traditions”

It won’t be out for a long time though…
 
Thanks everyone for spending so much time on this thread. All of your (name removed by moderator)uts have been very helpful to me.

I already received the NJB, and I’ll end up ordering the RSV:2CE to have a more literal translation in modern English to accompany my NJB.

I plan on reading the books in chronological order (by age), and for this purpose, the NJB will help me understand the Catholic interpretation since it’s not a literal translation. After that, I can do much of my learning with the RSV:2CE.

Finally, I hope that I did not offend anyone. I understand that there are people that feel more comfortable in reading in older English since it’s more traditional. I hope the traditionalists on these forums don’t get me wrong; I like reading in modern English not because I think it’s superior, but because I feel more comfortable reading it.

Thank you for helping me, and God Bless.
 
I have had a NJB for years, and more recently have acquired the RSV-2CE. I tend to read the RSV more often, but both remain good. I like to compare translations, so as to get a wider exposure to language use.
 
Actually, after reading some of the other posts, it looks like the RSV:2CE is still a work in progress, and I’m thinking about getting the DR instead since it has been stated as being a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate by Pope Pius XII.

It was also pointed out to me that a lot of the original Hebrew text are long gone, so the Latin Vulgate is the best we can get anyways.

I know that it has the thee’s and thou’s, but I already have the NJB for my own reading, and I can use the DR for literal uses. I’m hoping that the DR does get a modernized English version one day.
 
007 said:
Actually, after reading some of the other posts, it looks like the RSV:2CE is still a work in progress, and I’m thinking about getting the DR instead since it has been stated as being a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate by Pope Pius XII.

It was also pointed out to me that a lot of the original Hebrew text are long gone, so the Latin Vulgate is the best we can get anyways.

I know that it has the thee’s and thou’s, but I already have the NJB for my own reading, and I can use the DR for literal uses. I’m hoping that the DR does get a modernized English version one day.
Click to expand...
You are free to use any Catholic Bible has the imprimatur and or Nihil Obstat. Which one you will choose is based on your needs. Mine just happen to fit the discription of the Douay-Rheims and the Clementine Vulgate.
 
007 said:
It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.
Click to expand...
Hi!

Haven’t read any replies yet, so forgive me if I repeat someone’s comments!

Have you considered the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible?
Inclusive language is nowhere to be seen. This version of scripture is used in England and Wales in the liturgy, but with the ‘Grail’ Version of the Psalms rather than the Jerusalem’s. Oh but ‘Yahweh’ from the JB was changed to the more traditional ‘LORD’ throughout the text.

With this in mind, you may like the CTS New Catholic Bible, which is the above combination; Original JB text, with ‘Yahweh’ replaced with LORD throughout, and the JB Psalms replaced with Grail version.

It also has great tools such as a full list of weekday and Sunday mass readings, an index, four maps, decent notes (can sometimes be too liberal for me for supposed ‘catholic’ scholarship) both a liturgical and historical introduction to each book, and also a full index of the Psalms and Readings used in the Liturgy of the hours.

Its actually a very decent Bible, and, as an Englishman, matches my Mass texts exactly (which was the publisher’s purpose!👍)

Oh and its quite affordable even with U.S shipping.

cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/Our_Products_CTS_New_Catholic_Bible_21.html

PM me if you would like me to e-mail you the Brochure in .pdf, which they sent me a while back, I don’t think its on their site anymore. Contains page samples and a full list of the features. You may prefer it to the RSV and the NAB. Many do in my personal experience.

Hope I’ve been of use,

matt
 
007 said:
Actually, after reading some of the other posts, it looks like the RSV:2CE is still a work in progress, and I’m thinking about getting the DR instead since it has been stated as being a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate by Pope Pius XII.

It was also pointed out to me that a lot of the original Hebrew text are long gone, so the Latin Vulgate is the best we can get anyways.

I know that it has the thee’s and thou’s, but I already have the NJB for my own reading, and I can use the DR for literal uses. I’m hoping that the DR does get a modernized English version one day.
Click to expand...
While it may be a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate, there are a couple of problems with it when compared with other biblical manuscripts, the biggest is the death of Judas where the text of Acts incorporates the hanging of Judas from Matthew 27. Non-Vulgate manuscripts of Acts say nothing of Judas being hanged, but merely that he purchased a plot of land and died, perhaps through murder.

A triviality perhaps, but if you wanted something a little more accurate, something based on multiple manuscripts, then any of the RSV-CEs are good ones. The Vulgate/Douay-Rheims has tradition on its side, but not always the best renderings or translations, etc.
 
Epistemes said:
A triviality perhaps, but if you wanted something a little more accurate, something based on multiple manuscripts, then any of the RSV-CEs are good ones. The Vulgate/Douay-Rheims has tradition on its side, but not always the best renderings or translations, etc.
Click to expand...
I actually think in terms of accuracy the Douay stacks up well against other transaltions. When the King James was updated many of the changes matched the Douay.

The Douay was based on the Latin and corrected in light of the Hebrew and Greek - the 1582 original anyway.

If find it bizare the RSV-CE says full of grace than 2 verses later it says that Mary has found favor with God for example. I also believe they did not take a Christological approach the the OT which the Church seems to call for.
 
007 said:
Actually, after reading some of the other posts, it looks like the RSV:2CE is still a work in progress, and I’m thinking about getting the DR instead since it has been stated as being a perfect translation of the Latin Vulgate by Pope Pius XII.

It was also pointed out to me that a lot of the original Hebrew text are long gone, so the Latin Vulgate is the best we can get anyways.

I know that it has the thee’s and thou’s, but I already have the NJB for my own reading, and I can use the DR for literal uses. I’m hoping that the DR does get a modernized English version one day.
Click to expand...
It comes down to which translation you feel more comfortable reading. I chose the RSV-2CE because I personally don’t care for the ‘thees and thous’, other people do prefer them which is where it comes down to preference, and only you can make that decision. Don’t get caught up with other people saying this translation or that translation is best, that is a no win argument. The RSV-2CE, RSV-CE, D-R, NJB are all good translations, none are perfect, any could be criticized by others, another reason to have more than one or two translations to compare.
 
CalCatholic said:
It comes down to which translation you feel more comfortable reading. I chose the RSV-2CE because I personally don’t care for the ‘thees and thous’, other people do prefer them which is where it comes down to preference, and only you can make that decision. Don’t get caught up with other people saying this translation or that translation is best, that is a no win argument. The RSV-2CE, RSV-CE, D-R, NJB are all good translations, none are perfect, any could be criticized by others, another reason to have more than one or two translations to compare.
Click to expand...
An excellent plan. 👍
 
007 said:
It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.
Click to expand...
According to RT. REV. Henry G. Graham, “Where we got the Bible”, St. Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew, in contrast to translating from the “Septuagint”, which was already translated into Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Arabic, Ethiopic…which even that’s not bad considering its the translation Jesus used. So, in regards to being a translation from a translation I believe is false, at least for the Old Testament. I think our church has these actual translations in a museum somewhere.
In Jesus and Mary
Timothy
 
tjkacer said:
According to RT. REV. Henry G. Graham, “Where we got the Bible”, St. Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew, in contrast to translating from the “Septuagint”, which was already translated into Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Arabic, Ethiopic…which even that’s not bad considering its the translation Jesus used. So, in regards to being a translation from a translation I believe is false, at least for the Old Testament. I think our church has these actual translations in a museum somewhere.
In Jesus and Mary
Timothy
Click to expand...
If you read St. Jerome’s translation notes from Genesis (Hebrew Questions on Genesis), you will see that he quite often favors the Septuagint wording over the Hebrew text when there is a disagreement between the two–so it’s not accurate to say that he translated directly from the original Hebrew. Jerome’s Vulgate is eclectic rather than diplomatic, so it’s partially a translation of a translation, at least where the Old Testament is concerned.

His notes can be accessed in English here:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393216801&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=Jeromes+notes+on+Genesis

The Henry Graham work, for some reason a favorite of many apologists, has a number of pretty outrageous claims such as:

“[O]ne thing at least is certain…that is, for 100 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lord – the Old Testament existed precisely as we have it now.”

I don’t know of any Bible scholar that would assert this.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
If you read St. Jerome’s translation notes from Genesis (Hebrew Questions on Genesis), you will see that he quite often favors the Septuagint wording over the Hebrew text when there is a disagreement between the two–so it’s not accurate to say that he translated directly from the original Hebrew. Jerome’s Vulgate is eclectic rather than diplomatic, so it’s partially a translation of a translation, at least where the Old Testament is concerned.

His notes can be accessed in English here:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393216801&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=Jeromes+notes+on+Genesis

The Henry Graham work, for some reason a favorite of many apologists, has a number of pretty outrageous claims such as:

“[O]ne thing at least is certain…that is, for 100 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lord – the Old Testament existed precisely as we have it now.”

I don’t know of any Bible scholar that would assert this.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top